Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (2.49 seconds)
Documents citing Star Paper Mills Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Meerut on 22 August, 1989

Devidayal Aluminium Indus. (P) Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 28 July, 2000

In the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, supra, it was observed that hot rolled coil in plate form used in the manufacture of storage and processing tanks which in turn are used as capital goods in the manufacture of paper, were eligible to credit as inputs by virtue of sub-para 2 of Rule 57D introduced vide notification no. 17/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-5-1995.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Collr. Of Customs vs Hydranautics Membrane (India) Ltd. on 25 January, 1994

In the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 178, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of any definition of any word or expression in the statute, it would be permissible to refer to the dictionary meaning of that word or expression. We find that the word "part" which has not been defined in the Notification No. 155/86, according to the Chembers Twentieth Century Dictionary means :-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Venus Industries vs Chief Controller Of Imports And Exports on 6 November, 1997

In M/s. Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut , the question arose whether paper core would be constituent part of paper in the manufacture of paper. The word 'manufacture' is defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It was held by the Supreme Court after an elaborate research as to what the process of manufacture of paper involved, that paper core fell within the term "component parts" used in Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 as amended by Notification No. 105/82, dated 28-1-1982 insofar as manufacture of paper in rolls was concerned. The present situation is almost similar. Whatever was exported by the petitioner would definitely come within the definition of accessories or component parts. Perhaps for the sake of convenience, they were given a heading "spare parts" and export of such large quantities of accessories and components, particularly when there was no question of those components being meant for replacement, but they were to serve as original equipment only. It is also to be noted that in respect of bicycle parts exported by the petitioner no warranty or performance guarantee was given. The manufacture of the cycle would not be complete without the component parts and the nomenclature spare parts would not mean that the parts exported were not component parts or accessories. In my considered view, the words "spares and component parts and accessories" had been interchangeably used to the cleavage or it was sought to be introduced in an attempt to bring about a distinction without any difference. The authorities had all along been aware that the spares in the earlier unamended entry meant and included components and accessories and right through they had understood the term only like that and had also given the benefit of C.C.S. to the petitioner and it was not open to the authorities to resile from the earlier position. What they meant to do subsequently by introducing an amendment was only by way of clarification and as contended by the learned Senior Counsel to make some thing explicit, which was already implicit.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ahmedabad-I vs Riddhi Corporation on 13 May, 2019

4|Page E/10783/2015 & E/11267/2016-DB "parts" and "parts & accessories" are two different identifiable goods. The Notification No. 49/2008 CE (NT) covers only "parts‟, and therefore, it cannot be read as applicable to the accessories. The accessories of two wheelers are manufactured and cleared as per specification and requirement of M/s HMIPL and M/s IYMPL on the price agreed upon between themselves and duty is paid on the transaction value. The word „component‟ mentioned in Notification No. 49/2008 is also akin to the word "assemblies". "Component" means a constituent part as held in Star Paper Mills Vs CCE 1989 (4) SCC 724 = 43 ELT 178 (SC). Similar view has been expressed in CBEC in its circular No. 666/57/2002/CX dated 25.9.2002. „Parts‟, „Components‟ and „Assemblies‟ used under Notification covers the „elements‟, which fall in the same family and the family in itself is a family of „parts‟. Whereas against the phrasal words, i.e. „parts‟, „components‟, and „assemblies‟, the word accessories carried altogether a different meaning and its different in its use and importance. Meaning of "Accessory" according to Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition is person or thing that adds subordinately an adjunct, appurtenance, and accompaniment."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Riddhi Corporation vs Ahmedabad-I on 13 May, 2019

4|Page E/10783/2015 & E/11267/2016-DB "parts" and "parts & accessories" are two different identifiable goods. The Notification No. 49/2008 CE (NT) covers only "parts‟, and therefore, it cannot be read as applicable to the accessories. The accessories of two wheelers are manufactured and cleared as per specification and requirement of M/s HMIPL and M/s IYMPL on the price agreed upon between themselves and duty is paid on the transaction value. The word „component‟ mentioned in Notification No. 49/2008 is also akin to the word "assemblies". "Component" means a constituent part as held in Star Paper Mills Vs CCE 1989 (4) SCC 724 = 43 ELT 178 (SC). Similar view has been expressed in CBEC in its circular No. 666/57/2002/CX dated 25.9.2002. „Parts‟, „Components‟ and „Assemblies‟ used under Notification covers the „elements‟, which fall in the same family and the family in itself is a family of „parts‟. Whereas against the phrasal words, i.e. „parts‟, „components‟, and „assemblies‟, the word accessories carried altogether a different meaning and its different in its use and importance. Meaning of "Accessory" according to Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition is person or thing that adds subordinately an adjunct, appurtenance, and accompaniment."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2016

18. M/s. Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, (1989) 4 SCC 724, is an excise case in which an exemption Notification exempted goods used as component parts in manufacture of any goods on which excise duty was leviable. This judgment defines the word “component” to mean a constituent part. In this context, it was held that paper core is a component part of paper delivered to the customer in rolls, but not in sheets as it was not necessary for manufacture of paper sheets. This case would have no application to the facts of the present case. It is obvious that packing material used to pack a product complete in itself, cannot possibly be included in the word “component” as it is not a constituent part of manufactured tea.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Jotun India Pvt. Ltd vs The Union Of India And Ors on 22 December, 2022

In the case of Star Paper Mills Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut10, the decision relied upon by the Petitioner before the Authorities, the issue arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeal under the Central Excise Act against the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 10 (1970) 76 STC 312 (SC) skn 25 WP-12691.2019.doc held that paper core is necessary for rewinding of paper if it is delivered to the customer in rolls and would fall within the purview of the expression "any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product". Based on these decisions, the Petitioner sought to contend that anti-fouling paint is a part of the ship. Admittedly, these decisions did not arise from the same statutory provision as were before the Authority in the present case. Both the Authorities have rightly analyzed these decisions to hold that it is in the context of marketability.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - G Godse - Full Document

Dcm Data Systems Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 21 December, 2006

(e) The decision of the Tribunal in Star Paper Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut , was cited to point out that a division bench of this Tribunal had, following the ratio of the decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. held in paragraph 3 of the order that refund in that case was a consequence of finalization of the provisional assessment, and allowed the appeal. It is stated that a departmental appeal preferred against this order was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, reported in 2003 (157) ELT A 143.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jyoti Laboratories vs Collector Of Central Excise on 12 August, 1993

21. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, countering the arguments, submitted that heading 3204.29 covers also preparations tltereon and as the essential characteristics remained the same, it should fall in the same heading and that the ratio of Mallaya Fine Chemicals cited would squarely apply to the facts of the case. The show cause notice proposes a new classification and hence, it has to be construed as a fresh show cause notice and in the Star Paper Mills, cited by the learned SDR, the facts are different, inasmuch as, in that case, a corrigendum had been issued, while in the present case, it is a fresh show cause notice and not a corrigendum and hence, the citation would not apply. He contended that the end-use is not the criterion for the purpose of classification and hence, Acid violet dye in solution form would not fall under sub-heading 3204.90 because of a particular use.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Mrs. Daisy Paul vs Wealth-Tax Officer on 20 November, 1990

5. For the reasons stated hereto before, we hold that the assessee's share of interest in the firm is eligible for exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act. The learned departmental representative relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1990] 185 ITR 575. This decision dealt with the meaning of the word "goods", "manufacture", "component parts" etc. as found in Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and thus the decision went on the particular facts of the case, vis-a-vis the Central Excises and Salt Act read with the notification Nos. 201 of 1979 dated 4-6-1979 and 105 of 1982, dated 28-2-1982 issued thereunder. Thus the facts are dissimilar and the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Wealth-tax Act are also different.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next